Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record.

2. Initially, the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7750 (S/S) of 2009 (Bindheshwari Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others) and on 1.12.2009 this Court passed the following orders:

“Issue notice to opposite pares Nos. 4 and 5.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eligible candidate for being promoted to Class III by virtue of the fact he is working on the said post since 1.10.1973. His further submission is that the petitioner is going to retire within a period of one and a half years.. It is stated that no Class IV employee has been promoted on Class III post in promotee quota in the institution and the vacancy has been filled by direct requirement quota. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Singh v. District Inspector of schools, Gautambudh Nagar and others, 2006(9) ADJ 292 (DB) and in Writ Petition No. 4380 of 2007, Vinod Kumar Singh v. D.I.O.S. Azamgarh and others, decided on 29.6.2009.

The petitioner is already working on the promoted post under the orders of the Administrator. The matter requires consideration.

In the above circumstances, it is hereby provided that the vacancy in question shall not be filled up by the direct recruitment quota till the petitioner does not retire or any order is passed vacating the present interim order. As soon as the petitioner retires, the opposite parties will be at liberty to fill up the post by direct requirement quota. The salary of the petitioner shall also be paid in accordance with the entitlement of Class III post.”

3. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for applicant submits that inspite of directions given by this Court on 1.12.2009, salary has not been paid to the petitioner for the post in question.

4. He further submits that in view of the order dated 1.12.2009 there can be no other interpretation in the matter in question and opposite parties are bound to pay the salary to the petitioner on the post in question on which he is working in terms of the interim order dated 1.12.2009 passed by writ Court keeping in view the decision given in the case Jai Bhagwan Singh v. District Inspector of schools, Gautambudh Nagar and others, 2006(4) ADJ 507 (DB) and in Writ Petition No. 4380 of 2007, Vinod Kumar Singh v. D.I.O.S. Azamgarh and others, decided on 29.6.2009.

5. Sri Rameh Pandey, learned counsel for applicant also submits that in pursuance of order passed by writ Court, applicant has already performed his duties on the higher post as such he is entitled for salary on the said post so action on the part of respondent thereby not paying salary to his clear violation of order passed by writ Court liable to be punished.

6. Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent in rebuttal submits that although order dated 1.12.2009 passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned Standing Counsel but writ Court granted four week time to file counter-affidavit thereafter petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit and also notices were issued to opposite parties No. 4 and 5 in the writ petition and as a matter of fact on record counter-affidavit has been filed alongwith application for vacation of the interim order in Writ Petition No. 7750 (S/S) of 2009 pending consideration so the hearing of the contempt petition be deferred till application for vacation of interim relief moved by official respondents is not disposed of by the writ Court.

7. In view of the above said fact, the first and foremost question which is to be decided in the present case is that if ex parte interim order is granted in favour of the applicant/ petitioner by writ Court although after hearing the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/official respond